Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 12.11.2016 11:08: > Hi, > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Jacob Keller wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> No tests or documentation updates yet, and I'm not sure whether >>>> --follow-symlinks in other modes than --no-index should be supported, ignored >>>> (as it is now) or cause an error, but I'm leaning towards the third option. >>> >>> My knee-jerk reaction is: >>> >>> * The --no-index mode should default to your --follow-symlinks >>> behaviour, without any option to turn it on or off. >>> >> >> I agree. We shouldn't have to specify this for no-index. > > Ummm. *My* idea of --no-index was for it to behave as similar to the > --index version as possible. For example when comparing directories > containing symlinks. You seem intent on breaking this scenario. *My* idea of --no-index was for it to behave as similar to the --index-version as possible, regarding formatting etc., and to be a good substitute for ordinary diff. The proposed patch achieves exactly that - why should a *file* argument (which is not a pathspec in --no-index mode) not be treated in the same way in which every other command treats a file argument? The patch un-breaks the most natural expectation. Michael